Let's watch how simple questions cause the left to melt down.NY Times reporter out of her safe space

[HappyJoy]

These are positions Gabbard has that emulate a lot of what President Trump has been trying to do.

Like I said, she is a Liberal, but by Comparison to the Radical Left Democrat Party appears moderate, so she holds some Libertarian and or Conservative views.

• Reform our broken immigration system - Liberals same. She's also for giving citizenship to Dreamers
• Protect the Second Amendment while ensuring gun safety She's for an assault weapons ban and background checks.
• Care for our veterans - Well, no shit, who isn't?
• Invest in the needs of the American people - Extremely vague, pretty much the same bullshit every politician says.
• End regime change wars - Have you met Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?
• End the new Cold War and nuclear arms race - Sure, who doesn't? Again, vague.
• End Corruption in Washington - Once again, vague. Can you give any specifics? No? OK.
• Fix our broken criminal justice system Yeah, she wants to end minimum mandatory sentences and overturn all marijuana convictions...pretty liberal.

Good god, man. Get to know your candidate.

So, again. What are her conservative/libertarian views? I'm sure she has them and I'm ind of amazed you seem to be unable to point them out.

 

[CWayne]

This is odd, I've only seen about the first 5 minutes. But Jimmy Dore is blasting Democrats for running centrist candidates but takes exception with the criticism of Tulsi Gabbard? Who is trying to appease everyone wither her 'present' vote on impeachment? OK.

The NY TImes Reporter is lost but Jimmy Dore is a far left partisan troll. Thankfully most liberals don't take his bait.

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

So, in your mind, Gabbard voted 'present' in an effort to try and appease everyone and not because she may have a fundamental disagreement with the entire processes as engineered by her side.

 

[The Original Tree]

Good god, man. Get to know your candidate.

These are positions Gabbard has that emulate a lot of what President Trump has been trying to do.

Like I said, she is a Liberal, but by Comparison to the Radical Left Democrat Party appears moderate, so she holds some Libertarian and or Conservative views.

What you fail to realize is that Donald Trump has some Liberal views too, only you DimTards refuse to work with him on anything.

• Reform our broken immigration system - Liberals same. She's also for giving citizenship to Dreamers

Trump offered this very deal to Democrats in exchange for reform but they did not want Immigration Reform at all.

• Protect the Second Amendment while ensuring gun safety She's for an assault weapons ban and background checks.

Trump suggested that he might be for some form of gun control & background checks while still protecting 2A

• Care for our veterans - Well, no shit, who isn't?

Most Liberals hate veterans, and argued for the Status Quo even actively fought VA Reforms initiated by President Trump.

• Invest in the needs of the American people - Extremely vague, pretty much the same bullshit every politician says.

Make America Great Again. Put America and American Citizens 1st, instead of Foreign Countries and Foreigners. Pretty "Trumpian"

• End regime change wars - Have you met Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?

Have you met Donald Trump who said it first?

• End the new Cold War and nuclear arms race - Sure, who doesn't? Again, vague.

As opposed to all The Leftist War hawks? All of them want to continue "endless wars"

• End Corruption in Washington - Once again, vague. Can you give any specifics? No? OK.

Have you met Donald Trump? He wants bans on politicians working for lobbyists after leaving office. Look up his platform. You should know you candidates better.

• Fix our broken criminal justice system Yeah, she wants to end minimum mandatory sentences and overturn all marijuana convictions...pretty liberal.

Didn't Trump pass Criminal Justice Reform this year?

Have you met Donald Trump?

 

[HappyJoy]

This is odd, I've only seen about the first 5 minutes. But Jimmy Dore is blasting Democrats for running centrist candidates but takes exception with the criticism of Tulsi Gabbard? Who is trying to appease everyone wither her 'present' vote on impeachment? OK.

The NY TImes Reporter is lost but Jimmy Dore is a far left partisan troll. Thankfully most liberals don't take his bait.

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

So, in your mind, Gabbard voted 'present' in an effort to try and appease everyone and not because she may have a fundamental disagreement with the entire processes as engineered by her side.

She said Trump deserves to be impeached but the Democrats made it partisan. I wonder how partisan she considers ever other vote she takes? It was a cop out, it was damage control.

 

[The Original Tree]

This is odd, I've only seen about the first 5 minutes. But Jimmy Dore is blasting Democrats for running centrist candidates but takes exception with the criticism of Tulsi Gabbard? Who is trying to appease everyone wither her 'present' vote on impeachment? OK.

The NY TImes Reporter is lost but Jimmy Dore is a far left partisan troll. Thankfully most liberals don't take his bait.

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

So, in your mind, Gabbard voted 'present' in an effort to try and appease everyone and not because she may have a fundamental disagreement with the entire processes as engineered by her side.

She said Trump deserves to be impeached but the Democrats made it partisan. I wonder how partisan she considers ever other vote she takes? It was a cop out, it was damage control.

Here is what she actually said:

Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D, Hawaii) today released the following statement today on her vote regarding the impeachment of President Trump:

Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party. I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.

I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor. Tragically, that’s what it has been.

On the one side — The president’s defenders insist that he has done nothing wrong. They agree with the absurd proclamation that his conduct was “perfect.” They have abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party’s leader.

On the other side — The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Donald Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy. To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.

I am confident that the American people will decide to deliver a resounding rebuke of President Trump’s innumerable improprieties and abuses. And they will express that judgment at the ballot box. That is the way real and lasting change has always occurred in this great country: through the forcefully expressed will of the people.

A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart. This breaks my heart, and breaks the hearts of all patriotic Americans, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

So today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.

My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country. Let’s work side-by-side, seeking common ground, to usher in a bright future for the American people and our nation.

Tulsi Gabbard Releases Statement on Impeachment of President Trump | TULSI 2020

 

[HappyJoy]

Good god, man. Get to know your candidate.

These are positions Gabbard has that emulate a lot of what President Trump has been trying to do.

Like I said, she is a Liberal, but by Comparison to the Radical Left Democrat Party appears moderate, so she holds some Libertarian and or Conservative views.

What you fail to realize is that Donald Trump has some Liberal views too, only you DimTards refuse to work with him on anything.

• Reform our broken immigration system - Liberals same. She's also for giving citizenship to Dreamers

Trump offered this very deal to Democrats in exchange for reform but they did not want Immigration Reform at all.

• Protect the Second Amendment while ensuring gun safety She's for an assault weapons ban and background checks.

Trump suggested that he might be for some form of gun control while still protecting 2A

• Care for our veterans - Well, no shit, who isn't?

Most Liberals hate veterans.

• Invest in the needs of the American people - Extremely vague, pretty much the same bullshit every politician says.

Make America Great Again. Put America and American Citizens 1st, instead of Foreign Countries and Foreigners.

• End regime change wars - Have you met Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?

Have you met Donald Trump who said it first?

• End the new Cold War and nuclear arms race - Sure, who doesn't? Again, vague.

As opposed to all The Leftist War hawks? All of them want to continue "endless wars"

• End Corruption in Washington - Once again, vague. Can you give any specifics? No? OK.

Have you met Donald Trump? He wants bans on politicians working for lobbyists after leaving office. Look up his platform. You should know you candidates better.

• Fix our broken criminal justice system Yeah, she wants to end minimum mandatory sentences and overturn all marijuana convictions...pretty liberal.

Didn't Trump pass Criminal Justice Reform this year?

Have you met Donald Trump?

Just to sum up.

• Trump offered to make Dreamers citizens and then went ahead and made it worse for them? OK, that's bullshit.
• Trump has done nothing for gun control. He doesn't back any legislation for background checks or any other measures that have been passed by the house that Gabbard voted for.
• Everyone cares about veterans, idiot, don't let your jaundiced view get in the way.
• MAGA? Also vague. Literally every politician, even when they mean it come up with some sort of vague mantra. Try providing more information
• Bernie Sanders said it first, when he voted against the Iraq war that you morons were all over. Trump wasn't anti-war when that broke out.
• Donald Trump is corrupt, secretive and unwilling to work with the House in it's capacity of oversight. No president in history has been this way.
• Did he end mandatory minimum sentences and overturn marijuana convictions? This is about Gabbard, remember? You know her conservative positions that you seem unable to find.

You're the worst at this.

 

[The Original Tree]

Good god, man. Get to know your candidate.

These are positions Gabbard has that emulate a lot of what President Trump has been trying to do.

Like I said, she is a Liberal, but by Comparison to the Radical Left Democrat Party appears moderate, so she holds some Libertarian and or Conservative views.

What you fail to realize is that Donald Trump has some Liberal views too, only you DimTards refuse to work with him on anything.

• Reform our broken immigration system - Liberals same. She's also for giving citizenship to Dreamers

Trump offered this very deal to Democrats in exchange for reform but they did not want Immigration Reform at all.

• Protect the Second Amendment while ensuring gun safety She's for an assault weapons ban and background checks.

Trump suggested that he might be for some form of gun control while still protecting 2A

• Care for our veterans - Well, no shit, who isn't?

Most Liberals hate veterans.

• Invest in the needs of the American people - Extremely vague, pretty much the same bullshit every politician says.

Make America Great Again. Put America and American Citizens 1st, instead of Foreign Countries and Foreigners.

• End regime change wars - Have you met Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?

Have you met Donald Trump who said it first?

• End the new Cold War and nuclear arms race - Sure, who doesn't? Again, vague.

As opposed to all The Leftist War hawks? All of them want to continue "endless wars"

• End Corruption in Washington - Once again, vague. Can you give any specifics? No? OK.

Have you met Donald Trump? He wants bans on politicians working for lobbyists after leaving office. Look up his platform. You should know you candidates better.

• Fix our broken criminal justice system Yeah, she wants to end minimum mandatory sentences and overturn all marijuana convictions...pretty liberal.

Didn't Trump pass Criminal Justice Reform this year?

Have you met Donald Trump?

Just to sum up.

• Trump offered to make Dreamers citizens and then went ahead and made it worse for them? OK, that's bullshit.
• Trump has done nothing for gun control. He doesn't back any legislation for background checks or any other measures that have been passed by the house that Gabbard voted for.
• Everyone cares about veterans, idiot, don't let your jaundiced view get in the way.
• MAGA? Also vague. Literally every politician, even when they mean it come up with some sort of vague mantra. Try providing more information
• Bernie Sanders said it first, when he voted against the Iraq war that you morons were all over. Trump wasn't anti-war when that broke out.
• Donald Trump is corrupt, secretive and unwilling to work with the House in it's capacity of oversight. No president in history has been this way.
• Did he end mandatory minimum sentences and overturn marijuana convictions? This is about Gabbard, remember? You know her conservative positions that you seem unable to find.

You're the worst at this.

I provided links to support my arguments.

Where is your "Evidence" on Trump's Positions?

You claimed Gabbard did not hold any Conservative or Libertarian views. I proved you wrong. She holds some views that are roughly in the same ballpark as some of President Trump's views, and you failed to prove otherwise.

 

[HappyJoy]

This is odd, I've only seen about the first 5 minutes. But Jimmy Dore is blasting Democrats for running centrist candidates but takes exception with the criticism of Tulsi Gabbard? Who is trying to appease everyone wither her 'present' vote on impeachment? OK.

The NY TImes Reporter is lost but Jimmy Dore is a far left partisan troll. Thankfully most liberals don't take his bait.

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

So, in your mind, Gabbard voted 'present' in an effort to try and appease everyone and not because she may have a fundamental disagreement with the entire processes as engineered by her side.

She said Trump deserves to be impeached but the Democrats made it partisan. I wonder how partisan she considers ever other vote she takes? It was a cop out, it was damage control.

Here is what she actually said:

Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D, Hawaii) today released the following statement today on her vote regarding the impeachment of President Trump:

Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party. I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.

I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor. Tragically, that’s what it has been.

On the one side — The president’s defenders insist that he has done nothing wrong. They agree with the absurd proclamation that his conduct was “perfect.” They have abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party’s leader.

On the other side — The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Donald Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy. To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.

I am confident that the American people will decide to deliver a resounding rebuke of President Trump’s innumerable improprieties and abuses. And they will express that judgment at the ballot box. That is the way real and lasting change has always occurred in this great country: through the forcefully expressed will of the people.

A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart. This breaks my heart, and breaks the hearts of all patriotic Americans, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

So today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.

My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country. Let’s work side-by-side, seeking common ground, to usher in a bright future for the American people and our nation.

Tulsi Gabbard Releases Statement on Impeachment of President Trump | TULSI 2020

Yeah, exactly. She said Trump was guilty and Democrats are partisan which is what I originally stated.

Good job, you blew it again. Her vote was a cop out.

 

[HappyJoy]

Good god, man. Get to know your candidate.

These are positions Gabbard has that emulate a lot of what President Trump has been trying to do.

Like I said, she is a Liberal, but by Comparison to the Radical Left Democrat Party appears moderate, so she holds some Libertarian and or Conservative views.

What you fail to realize is that Donald Trump has some Liberal views too, only you DimTards refuse to work with him on anything.

• Reform our broken immigration system - Liberals same. She's also for giving citizenship to Dreamers

Trump offered this very deal to Democrats in exchange for reform but they did not want Immigration Reform at all.

• Protect the Second Amendment while ensuring gun safety She's for an assault weapons ban and background checks.

Trump suggested that he might be for some form of gun control while still protecting 2A

• Care for our veterans - Well, no shit, who isn't?

Most Liberals hate veterans.

• Invest in the needs of the American people - Extremely vague, pretty much the same bullshit every politician says.

Make America Great Again. Put America and American Citizens 1st, instead of Foreign Countries and Foreigners.

• End regime change wars - Have you met Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren?

Have you met Donald Trump who said it first?

• End the new Cold War and nuclear arms race - Sure, who doesn't? Again, vague.

As opposed to all The Leftist War hawks? All of them want to continue "endless wars"

• End Corruption in Washington - Once again, vague. Can you give any specifics? No? OK.

Have you met Donald Trump? He wants bans on politicians working for lobbyists after leaving office. Look up his platform. You should know you candidates better.

• Fix our broken criminal justice system Yeah, she wants to end minimum mandatory sentences and overturn all marijuana convictions...pretty liberal.

Didn't Trump pass Criminal Justice Reform this year?

Have you met Donald Trump?

Just to sum up.

• Trump offered to make Dreamers citizens and then went ahead and made it worse for them? OK, that's bullshit.
• Trump has done nothing for gun control. He doesn't back any legislation for background checks or any other measures that have been passed by the house that Gabbard voted for.
• Everyone cares about veterans, idiot, don't let your jaundiced view get in the way.
• MAGA? Also vague. Literally every politician, even when they mean it come up with some sort of vague mantra. Try providing more information
• Bernie Sanders said it first, when he voted against the Iraq war that you morons were all over. Trump wasn't anti-war when that broke out.
• Donald Trump is corrupt, secretive and unwilling to work with the House in it's capacity of oversight. No president in history has been this way.
• Did he end mandatory minimum sentences and overturn marijuana convictions? This is about Gabbard, remember? You know her conservative positions that you seem unable to find.

You're the worst at this.

I provided links to support my arguments.

Where is your "Evidence" on Trump's Positions?

You claimed Gabbard did not hold any Conservative or Libertarian views. I proved you wrong. She holds some views that are roughly in the same ballpark as some of President Trump's views, and you failed to prove otherwise.

You provided a link, you didn't provide any examples from it. I actually used a couple in my response to you.

I also did not claim that Gabbard didn't hold any, I just asked you to supply them so that I can demonstrate that it's minimal at best but you couldn't even bother to muster a single one that didn't have a left leaning bent. Which is why I am saying you're really bad at this.

 

[The Original Tree]

That is not exactly what she said. She also said, she could not name what he did, but that "she thought" he was "guilty of some wrongdoing" but like the Democrat Inquiry, could not name a single violation of US Code that was violated.

She also said she could not Vote for an entirely partisan impeachment because what he is accused of doing does not rise to the level of impeachment but is more worthy of Censure, because the entire process was contaminated by partiality and BIAS, and that there was simply not enough evidence.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

So, in your mind, Gabbard voted 'present' in an effort to try and appease everyone and not because she may have a fundamental disagreement with the entire processes as engineered by her side.

She said Trump deserves to be impeached but the Democrats made it partisan. I wonder how partisan she considers ever other vote she takes? It was a cop out, it was damage control.

Here is what she actually said:

Washington, DC -- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D, Hawaii) today released the following statement today on her vote regarding the impeachment of President Trump:

Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political party. I have always put our country first. One may not always agree with my decision, but everyone should know that I will always do what I believe to be right for the country that I love.

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

I am standing in the center and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.

I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country. When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor. Tragically, that’s what it has been.

On the one side — The president’s defenders insist that he has done nothing wrong. They agree with the absurd proclamation that his conduct was “perfect.” They have abdicated their responsibility to exercise legitimate oversight, and instead blindly do the bidding of their party’s leader.

On the other side — The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Donald Trump has violated public trust. Congress must be unequivocal in denouncing the president’s misconduct and stand up for the American people and our democracy. To this end, I have introduced a censure resolution that will send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from office to the voters to decide.

I am confident that the American people will decide to deliver a resounding rebuke of President Trump’s innumerable improprieties and abuses. And they will express that judgment at the ballot box. That is the way real and lasting change has always occurred in this great country: through the forcefully expressed will of the people.

A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are ripping our country apart. This breaks my heart, and breaks the hearts of all patriotic Americans, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.

So today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.

My vote today is a vote for much needed reconciliation and hope that together we can heal our country. Let’s work side-by-side, seeking common ground, to usher in a bright future for the American people and our nation.

Tulsi Gabbard Releases Statement on Impeachment of President Trump | TULSI 2020

Yeah, exactly. She said Trump was guilty and Democrats are partisan which is what I originally stated.

Good job, you blew it again. Her vote was a cop out.

 

[HappyJoy]

That is not exactly what she said. She also said, she could not name what he did, but that he was "guilty of some wrongdoing" but like the Democrat Inquiry, could not name a single violation of US Code that was violated.

Yeah, it was a long winding mess of a letter meant to please idiots like you. She thinks Trump is guilty, pleases liberals? Says the Democrats are partisans which pleases the panty sniffers such as yourself.

My only hope is that you give her a lot of money.

 

[The Original Tree]

That is not exactly what she said. She also said, she could not name what he did, but that he was "guilty of some wrongdoing" but like the Democrat Inquiry, could not name a single violation of US Code that was violated.

Yeah, it was a long winding mess of a letter meant to please idiots like you. She thinks Trump is guilty, pleases liberals? Says the Democrats are partisans which pleases the panty sniffers such as yourself.

My only hope is that you give her a lot of money.

Again, let me post her reasons for not voting for impeachment.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

 

[HappyJoy]

That is not exactly what she said. She also said, she could not name what he did, but that he was "guilty of some wrongdoing" but like the Democrat Inquiry, could not name a single violation of US Code that was violated.

Yeah, it was a long winding mess of a letter meant to please idiots like you. She thinks Trump is guilty, pleases liberals? Says the Democrats are partisans which pleases the panty sniffers such as yourself.

My only hope is that you give her a lot of money.

Again, let me post her reasons for not voting for impeachment.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

Yeah, as I already stated she is saying the Democrats were being partisan while also claiming Trump is guilty. She is having it both ways and your nose is so far up her panties (metaphorically speaking, I don't think she wants you around her) you buy it.

 

[The Original Tree]

That is not exactly what she said. She also said, she could not name what he did, but that he was "guilty of some wrongdoing" but like the Democrat Inquiry, could not name a single violation of US Code that was violated.

Yeah, it was a long winding mess of a letter meant to please idiots like you. She thinks Trump is guilty, pleases liberals? Says the Democrats are partisans which pleases the panty sniffers such as yourself.

My only hope is that you give her a lot of money.

Again, let me post her reasons for not voting for impeachment.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

Yeah, as I already stated she is saying the Democrats were being partisan while also claiming Trump is guilty. She is having it both ways and your nose is so far up her panties you buy it.

That's again, not exactly what she said.

“there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Why do you downplay what she said? She said she could not vote for impeachment because the process was biased and could not be trusted and there was not enough evidence to rise to the level of impeachment.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

 

[HappyJoy]

That is not exactly what she said. She also said, she could not name what he did, but that he was "guilty of some wrongdoing" but like the Democrat Inquiry, could not name a single violation of US Code that was violated.

Yeah, it was a long winding mess of a letter meant to please idiots like you. She thinks Trump is guilty, pleases liberals? Says the Democrats are partisans which pleases the panty sniffers such as yourself.

My only hope is that you give her a lot of money.

Again, let me post her reasons for not voting for impeachment.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

Yeah, as I already stated she is saying the Democrats were being partisan while also claiming Trump is guilty. She is having it both ways and your nose is so far up her panties you buy it.

That's again, not exactly what she said.

“there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Why do you downplay what she said? She said she could not vote for impeachment because the process was biased and could not be trusted and there was not enough evidence to rise to the level of impeachment.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

It's exactly what she said, I'm merely taking it to the bare bones.

 

[The Original Tree]

No, you are restating what she said with your own spin, much like Adam Schiff did.

Parsing someone’s statements is
intellectually dishonest. She is the only honest person in your entire Party, and one can be honest and partisan at the same time and she is both, which is more than I can say for you, Schiff, Nadler or Pelosi.

Her vote speaks for itself.

That is not exactly what she said. She also said, she could not name what he did, but that he was "guilty of some wrongdoing" but like the Democrat Inquiry, could not name a single violation of US Code that was violated.

Yeah, it was a long winding mess of a letter meant to please idiots like you. She thinks Trump is guilty, pleases liberals? Says the Democrats are partisans which pleases the panty sniffers such as yourself.

My only hope is that you give her a lot of money.

Again, let me post her reasons for not voting for impeachment.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

Yeah, as I already stated she is saying the Democrats were being partisan while also claiming Trump is guilty. She is having it both ways and your nose is so far up her panties you buy it.

That's again, not exactly what she said.

“there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

Why do you downplay what she said? She said she could not vote for impeachment because the process was biased and could not be trusted and there was not enough evidence to rise to the level of impeachment.

The president’s opponents insist that if we do not impeach, our country will collapse into dictatorship. All but explicitly, they accuse him of treason. Such extreme rhetoric was never conducive to an impartial fact-finding process.

The Founders of our country made clear their concerns about impeachment being a purely partisan exercise. In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.” In such cases, he said, “there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.”

After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no.

It's exactly what she said, I'm merely taking it to the bare bones.

 

[CWayne]

This is odd, I've only seen about the first 5 minutes. But Jimmy Dore is blasting Democrats for running centrist candidates but takes exception with the criticism of Tulsi Gabbard? Who is trying to appease everyone wither her 'present' vote on impeachment? OK.

The NY TImes Reporter is lost but Jimmy Dore is a far left partisan troll. Thankfully most liberals don't take his bait.

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

So, in your mind, Gabbard voted 'present' in an effort to try and appease everyone and not because she may have a fundamental disagreement with the entire processes as engineered by her side.

She said Trump deserves to be impeached but the Democrats made it partisan. I wonder how partisan she considers ever other vote she takes? It was a cop out, it was damage control.

A classic example of doing the right thing, but for the wrong reason. Trump did nothing to deserve being impeached with the notable exception of winning an election.


But I guess this might prove the other point as well. She voted 'present' for politics, not because she, or any Democrat in office, have any principled stand.

 

[The Original Tree]

She voted present because as she said, there was no

"real demonstration of innocence or guilt.”

She also voted present because the process was biased and flawed.

"In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.”

This is odd, I've only seen about the first 5 minutes. But Jimmy Dore is blasting Democrats for running centrist candidates but takes exception with the criticism of Tulsi Gabbard? Who is trying to appease everyone wither her 'present' vote on impeachment? OK.

The NY TImes Reporter is lost but Jimmy Dore is a far left partisan troll. Thankfully most liberals don't take his bait.

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

So, in your mind, Gabbard voted 'present' in an effort to try and appease everyone and not because she may have a fundamental disagreement with the entire processes as engineered by her side.

She said Trump deserves to be impeached but the Democrats made it partisan. I wonder how partisan she considers ever other vote she takes? It was a cop out, it was damage control.

A classic example of doing the right thing, but for the wrong reason. Trump did nothing to deserve being impeached with the notable exception of winning an election.


But I guess this might prove the other point as well. She voted 'present' for politics, not because she, or any Democrat in office, have any principled stand.

 

[HappyJoy]

She voted present because as she said, there was no

"real demonstration of innocence or guilt.”

She also voted present because the process was biased and flawed.

"In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton warned against any impeachment that would merely “connect itself with the pre-existing factions,” and “enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other.”

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

So, in your mind, Gabbard voted 'present' in an effort to try and appease everyone and not because she may have a fundamental disagreement with the entire processes as engineered by her side.

She said Trump deserves to be impeached but the Democrats made it partisan. I wonder how partisan she considers ever other vote she takes? It was a cop out, it was damage control.

A classic example of doing the right thing, but for the wrong reason. Trump did nothing to deserve being impeached with the notable exception of winning an election.


But I guess this might prove the other point as well. She voted 'present' for politics, not because she, or any Democrat in office, have any principled stand.

She hooked you guys. Can she depend on you for a vote? No? OK.

 

[22lcidw]

Democrats still do not understand why Trump was elected. He was elected because he did not follow The Party line of either Democrat or Republican and takes his own common sense line.

Gabbard is a lot like Trump only a little on The Left. Because she thinks for herself, she is like an Uppity "N" word to them so they reject her.

If they had any brains, they'd be pushing for her to be The Nominee. But they are soley agenda driven, and Gabbard can't get them to where they want to go, so she's out.

This is odd, I've only seen about the first 5 minutes. But Jimmy Dore is blasting Democrats for running centrist candidates but takes exception with the criticism of Tulsi Gabbard? Who is trying to appease everyone wither her 'present' vote on impeachment? OK.

The NY TImes Reporter is lost but Jimmy Dore is a far left partisan troll. Thankfully most liberals don't take his bait.

You are 180 degrees from what was actually discussed on the video. You are worse than this hack NY Times Reporter.

Gabbard isn't trying to appease everyone with her 'present' vote? Jimmy Dore isn't a far left troll? Hmm, prove me wrong.

Gabbard doesn't have any support from the left or middle as much as she tries. The only support I ever see from her are from Trump supporters who have no intention of voting for her.

You understand now what Repubs go through every 4 years as the party moves the voters to a candidate with their views by putting other candidates in to cancel a potential front runner out. You never have to worry because you all rubber stamp each other.